Now on to Double-Jeopardy; not the show. I found the idea interesting because, in the Scientific Method in truth discovery, you can ask and re-ask the same question many different ways. Scholarship works in a similar manner, etc. In each case, you can continue going after the same thing, over and over again, changing parameters slightly, until you get the result you want.

But Double-Jeopardy, which is a part of Common Law (which is 800 years old) and goes ALL THE WAY BACK TO ANCIENT GREECE (think about that!) – not guilty=not guilty and that’s that. No taking it back. (in theory)

I was at first surprised at how nearly Universal a version of “not being tried twice for the same crime” and all of the other parts of double jeopardy (I think it’s 3 things total)

…and THEN to find out the amazing amount of exceptions.

The USA has the strongest double-jeopardy law; it’s a completely built-in thing. Other countries have it, but enforce it to different degrees; places like Scotland and Australia are being accused of nearly having done away with it altogether, with so many exceptions (or with a very weak version of it) that it is more or less “not there really”.

I’m generally for it (and allowing for exceptions in extreme cases perhaps) What do you think? I found the pattern of answers that people gave on this site to be quite interesting;

Around 340 BC – that’s 2300 years ago – Demosthenes “Now the laws forbid the same man to be tried twice on the same issue, be it a civil action, a scrutiny, a contested claim, or anything else of the sort.”

2300 years… human rights, trials, etc such an amazingly common part of, well, being civilized I suppose. It was already law then… which means it’s probably far older than that.